Blakwashing is the practice of falsely claiming to be Indigenous-owned, or exaggerating involvement with Indigenous communities, to gain a competitive edge, secure government contracts or enhance public image. It is greenwashing’s cousin: the same deception, aimed at a different trust.

A non-Indigenous business structures a partnership or joint venture with an Indigenous business so it appears eligible for opportunities meant for Indigenous enterprises — while ownership, control and benefit stay where they were. Supply Nation guidance, via “Blakwashing” 101.

Misleading marketing materials, false or borrowed certifications, and exaggerated claims about the social and economic benefit delivered to First Nations communities. It appears in corporate supply chains and in government programs.

Blakwashing diverts opportunities and resources away from legitimate Indigenous businesses, stalling their growth and the economic development of their communities.

Confidence in government and corporate support for Indigenous communities erodes when claims turn out to be hollow — and the honest programs pay that price alongside the dishonest ones.

The policy was designed to empower Indigenous businesses and close socio-economic gaps. Blakwashing turns it into a tokenistic gesture — money moves, outcomes do not.

Businesses that genuinely invest in Indigenous communities carry real costs and real effort. A look-alike avoids both while competing for the same work.

Addressing blakwashing is part of a broader commitment to social and economic justice — making sure Indigenous businesses receive the opportunities and recognition they deserve, and contributing to reconciliation and equity in Australia. Claiming a connection you do not have also contributes to the commodification and exploitation of Indigenous culture: the culture becomes a marketing asset while the community it belongs to sees none of the benefit.

No specifics — “Indigenous-owned” with no percentage disclosed. Generalised statements — “working with Indigenous partners”: occasional consultation, or shared control? Ambiguous terms — owned, led and focused used interchangeably, defined nowhere. Omitted qualifiers — “Indigenous-made” covering a sliver of the product line. No evidence — “promotes Indigenous culture” with nothing to check. Misleading visuals — cultural artwork implying a connection the structure does not have.

What the terms actually imply. “Indigenous-owned” is a claim about equity, and a business can use it while disclosing no percentage at all. “Indigenous-led” implies Indigenous people hold key leadership positions, though it may mean only some level of Indigenous involvement in management. “Indigenous-focused” describes who the business serves, not who owns or runs it. The same slippage affects “working with Indigenous partners”: occasional consultation and a deep, ongoing partnership with significant impact are both described by that phrase. Ask which is meant, and ask for the number behind it.

Illustrative wording — composites, not quotes from any business.

Specific details — percentages, named partnerships, initiatives and their measured impact. Terms defined where they are used. Qualifying information included rather than buried. Evidence you can open: case studies, impact reports, testimonials, independent certification. And claims that match the structure of the business.

Five moves fix most vague copy. Provide specific details — the percentage of Indigenous ownership, the types of partnership, the initiatives and their impact. Use clear terminology — define “Indigenous-owned”, “Indigenous-led” and “Indigenous-focused” within the context of your own business. Include qualifying information — if products are “Indigenous-made”, say which ones and what share of the range. Back claims with evidence — case studies, impact reports, testimonials from Indigenous partners or independent certification. Be transparent and honest — avoid exaggeration, so every claim reflects the real relationship.

Vague and unqualified claims undermine consumer trust. When businesses make broad statements without clear backing, people become sceptical of every claim related to Indigenous involvement — and that erosion affects not just the business in question but the genuine Indigenous businesses and initiatives competing beside it.

Under the Australian Consumer Law, businesses must not make false or misleading representations. Vague claims that cannot be substantiated may be considered misleading, which can lead to enforcement action by regulators such as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). Chapter 05 sets out the sections that apply.

The Australian Consumer Law, part of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct and false or misleading representations. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) enforces it with infringement notices, court orders, financial penalties that can run to millions and enforceable undertakings.

A case note on misleading and deceptive conduct in the provision of “Aboriginal community” funeral insurance shows regulators and courts engaging with claims that trade on an Aboriginal connection. It concerned insurance marketed to Aboriginal communities rather than a false claim of Indigenous ownership in a tender — but it is the same body of law, applied to the same kind of representation.

Infringement notices require a business to pay a penalty for a breach. Court orders can stop a business making misleading claims and require it to publish corrective notices or take other remedial action. Penalties can run into the millions of dollars, depending on the severity and impact of the breach. Enforceable undertakings commit a business to specific actions to comply with the law and to rectify harm its conduct caused.

Compliance matters for the same reason the claims do: accurate, substantiated and transparent statements are what keep both consumer trust and the business itself out of trouble.

Research and verify claims before you rely on them. Ask direct questions — a genuine business answers them. Report suspected blakwashing to the ACCC. Then redirect the spend: find certified businesses on Supply Nation Indigenous Business Direct.

Ask specifically about the extent of Indigenous ownership, the nature of the partnership and the impact on Indigenous communities. Verify any certification or endorsement independently rather than taking the badge at face value. To report, you can lodge a complaint through the ACCC’s online form or contact its Infocentre. And share what you find — raising awareness in your own network helps others decide with open eyes, and encourages businesses to be more transparent.

Build verification into the way you work: check ownership, management and control before the claim goes out. Publish specifics. Monitor claims so they stay true as the business changes. Engage with First Nations communities so initiatives deliver real benefit. Seek independent certification. Report progress and setbacks alike.

Put internal policies and staff training behind it, so everyone who writes or approves a claim understands why accuracy matters. Regularly update and audit the verification process rather than treating it as a one-off. Where you seek certification, make sure the process itself is thorough and transparent, with clear criteria and standards.

Enforce the laws already on the books. Monitor and investigate claims of Indigenous ownership in procurement pipelines. Publish clear guidance so the eight rules are easy to meet — and disclose enforcement outcomes. Daylight is the deterrent.

Businesses, consumers and regulators together can create an environment where Indigenous businesses are genuinely supported and claims about Indigenous involvement are accurate and trustworthy. That is what contributes to closing the socio-economic gap, to genuine reconciliation, and to the benefits of economic growth being shared equitably with Indigenous communities.